Carryfast:
If nothing else it proves that all rear engine bus development was a flawed solution to a non existent problem.
Actually, the objective was accomplished by developing rear engines to a PCV.
Take in to consideration, approx 1700 routemasters in London and other forms of front engined buses around the UK.
It’s called cost efficiency.
Absolutely cost efficiency which helped to break Leyland truck and bus in trying to fix the inherent flaws of a tightly packed engine transmission unit with no decent airflow to keep it all cool.In addition to the extra time needed for maintenenance because of the resulting lack of access.On that note I’d guess a front engine tilt cab truck chassis with a typical bus/coach body ? is as good as it gets for cost effectiveness.But what would I know.
Maybe do some research before you quote Leyland… the B15, designed in 1975 by Leyland … was 20 years ahead of its time they were later called the Leyland titan bus… on the rear of the Titan, there was a huge fan… what broke Leyland was all the strikes … it caused Liverpool transport and London transport to stop orders for that bus … and go over to metro bus… there was no issues with cooling of the buses … back in 1995, I drove titans in London when I first passed my bus test … a semi auto box, and the irony is the RML and RM same as the RMC green line made by LT had issues with over heating by the fly wheel … the transmission on the Leyland titan was a semi auto box the same as the national and lynx … Leyland carried on to make more buses the Olympian etc … as for buses with tilt never been so, not within the RT,RML or tram era … further more, rear engined buses were by far a better ride than the front end engine …
Carryfast:
If nothing else it proves that all rear engine bus development was a flawed solution to a non existent problem.
Actually, the objective was accomplished by developing rear engines to a PCV.
Take in to consideration, approx 1700 routemasters in London and other forms of front engined buses around the UK.
It’s called cost efficiency.
Absolutely cost efficiency which helped to break Leyland truck and bus in trying to fix the inherent flaws of a tightly packed engine transmission unit with no decent airflow to keep it all cool.In addition to the extra time needed for maintenenance because of the resulting lack of access.On that note I’d guess a front engine tilt cab truck chassis with a typical bus/coach body ? is as good as it gets for cost effectiveness.But what would I know.
Harcking back to the 70’s and British Leyland…fancy that. There’s lots of things Leyland couldn’t do, I’d say the fact everyone else in the industry managed to create viable vehicles shows they do actually work. What would you know indeed, just another subject you’re seemingly completely cluesless about (Surely I don’t have to spell out the reasons busses and coaches are mostly rear engined do I? Surely not )
The reason Leyland buses failed was because of striking … they couldn’t fill fill orders … and the companies took business to other companies such as Metrobus and the makes of the DMS… as stated the Titan bus was many years ahead of its time … please explain to me why rear engine buses became so successful … I mean what would you know or I
discoman:
The reason Leyland buses failed was because of striking … they couldn’t fill fill orders … and the companies took business to other companies such as Metrobus and the makes of the DMS… as stated the Titan bus was many years ahead of its time … please explain to me why rear engine buses became so successful … I mean what would you know or I
Great so in this universe Leyland didn’t need to effectively reengineer the Atlantean for numerous reasons,including it having a penchant for burning up its transmission and they couldn’t have done it even if they wanted to because the workforce was always at home on strike for the fun of it.Oh and the RM and RMC were crap.
While assuming that what we’re seeing in the photo is a bus body built on a front engine tilt cab truck based chassis ■■.There’s absolutely no way that its operator specced it like that because it’s cheaper,partly because it’s easier to make a conventional front longitudinal engine,gearbox and diff layout and to keep it all cool and in this case,with the truck tilt cab ?, it’s also easier to work on because you can actually get to the engine.
i allus chuckle at the coffin beds in buses for the spare driver to get his head doon. often theres a wee window i cant imagine anything worse than tryin to sleep down in the bowels of any
I have heard of piano movers having their vehicles built on a coach chassis that way they get the air bag suspension ,there are some horseboxes also built like this I often see them when working at racecourses (not the hairy a$$sed end of the trade). Some of the newer fire engines look more bus than truck nowadays. Technology is moving on.
alamcculloch:
Some of the newer fire engines look more bus than truck nowadays. Technology is moving on.
Or 70’s.
I actually heard first hand of someone attempting to stop one of these as it was approaching a request stop in Feltham while going back to the factory from testing in the day.I guess they thought it was a single decker on the 285 route.
discoman:
The reason Leyland buses failed was because of striking … they couldn’t fill fill orders … and the companies took business to other companies such as Metrobus and the makes of the DMS… as stated the Titan bus was many years ahead of its time … please explain to me why rear engine buses became so successful … I mean what would you know or I
Great so in this universe Leyland didn’t need to effectively reengineer the Atlantean for numerous reasons,including it having a penchant for burning up its transmission and they couldn’t have done it even if they wanted to because the workforce was always at home on strike for the fun of it.Oh and the RM and RMC were crap.
While assuming that what we’re seeing in the photo is a bus body built on a front engine tilt cab truck based chassis ■■.There’s absolutely no way that its operator specced it like that because it’s cheaper,partly because it’s easier to make a conventional front longitudinal engine,gearbox and diff layout and to keep it all cool and in this case,with the truck tilt cab ?, it’s also easier to work on because you can actually get to the engine.
All this talk of Leyland reminds me that work have put me down to drive an ‘82 Leyland Tiger coach on Sunday night at Glastonbury, quite looking forward to it if they don’t change it
I’ve seen one of those in Canada, Calgary to be exact, the driver looked to be in his early 20s, what a job that must be, apart from the load of old codgers in the back of course.
discoman:
The reason Leyland buses failed was because of striking … they couldn’t fill fill orders … and the companies took business to other companies such as Metrobus and the makes of the DMS… as stated the Titan bus was many years ahead of its time … please explain to me why rear engine buses became so successful … I mean what would you know or I
Great so in this universe Leyland didn’t need to effectively reengineer the Atlantean for numerous reasons,including it having a penchant for burning up its transmission and they couldn’t have done it even if they wanted to because the workforce was always at home on strike for the fun of it.Oh and the RM and RMC were crap.
While assuming that what we’re seeing in the photo is a bus body built on a front engine tilt cab truck based chassis ■■.There’s absolutely no way that its operator specced it like that because it’s cheaper,partly because it’s easier to make a conventional front longitudinal engine,gearbox and diff layout and to keep it all cool and in this case,with the truck tilt cab ?, it’s also easier to work on because you can actually get to the engine.
We really need cav to referee on this difference in opinion.While I obviously didn’t post the Quora answers to help the case for rear engine.
No neither did I, I just spent time working at Holloway bus Garage driving routemasters and metros and titans … the Titan, with use of a T key, has ample space to work at, may I ask have you driven a routemaster or a Titan bus or a metro bus as you will know all 3 have different transmissions and drive complete different … when metrobus mk2 came in it was complete different just Like the Leyland Olympian which went away from semi auto to full on auto … if you were type trained as a crew driver or opo driver you would know this … as for the RML they were never feasible to be opo operated, due to cab lay out … the pictured Scania would never be disabled compliant neither would front engined bus unless it was crew operated.
Carryfast:
I obviously didn’t post the Quora answers to help the case for rear engine.
No neither did I, I just spent time working at Holloway bus Garage driving routemasters and metros and titans … the Titan, with use of a T key, has ample space to work at, may I ask have you driven a routemaster or a Titan bus or a metro bus as you will know all 3 have different transmissions and drive complete different … when metrobus mk2 came in it was complete different just Like the Leyland Olympian which went away from semi auto to full on auto … if you were type trained as a crew driver or opo driver you would know this … as for the RML they were never feasible to be opo operated, due to cab lay out … the pictured Scania would never be disabled compliant neither would front engined bus unless it was crew operated.
So assuming I’m talking bollox and haven’t got a clue because I’ve never been a bus driver.
How do you otherwise explain any continuing operational choice of front engine and/or even truck chassis based buses in the topic and other examples which I’ve posted.Discounting obviously unjustified reasons in your view,like the rear engine configuration’s bad reputation for catching fire possibly caused by excessive heat build up ( safety ),durability/reliability/production and purchase cost,access to the engine/transmission for maintenance ■■.
On that note I’d suggest that experience of building trucks is possibly more of an asset than driving buses.
Carryfast:
I obviously didn’t post the Quora answers to help the case for rear engine.
No neither did I, I just spent time working at Holloway bus Garage driving routemasters and metros and titans … the Titan, with use of a T key, has ample space to work at, may I ask have you driven a routemaster or a Titan bus or a metro bus as you will know all 3 have different transmissions and drive complete different … when metrobus mk2 came in it was complete different just Like the Leyland Olympian which went away from semi auto to full on auto … if you were type trained as a crew driver or opo driver you would know this … as for the RML they were never feasible to be opo operated, due to cab lay out … the pictured Scania would never be disabled compliant neither would front engined bus unless it was crew operated.
So assuming I’m talking bollox and haven’t got a clue because I’ve never been a bus driver.
How do you otherwise explain any continuing operational choice of front engine and/or even truck chassis based buses in the topic and other examples which I’ve posted.Discounting obviously unjustified reasons in your view,like the rear engine configuration’s bad reputation for catching fire possibly caused by excessive heat build up ( safety ),durability/reliability/production and purchase cost,access to the engine/transmission for maintenance ■■.
On that note I’d suggest that experience of building trucks is possibly more of an asset than driving buses.
Ah, but trucks can combust and catch fire, cars can catch fire … coaches are mid chassis engines or rear they catch fire, you can’t always blame heat, there are many reasons … heating elements which cause it … fact remains your point is flawed … I don’t claim to be able to build a truck … but I am sure if taught it is not that hard … rear engines are more economical than front based engines … if you factor in many issues, conductors wages … wayfarer etc… etc pensions … just accept in this instant you are wrong … the old ■■■■■ engine was good along with the gardener engine within the metro … how, back to the topic the Scania bus shown is not suffice in modern era to justify front engines … and non practical.
I don’t care if you can build a truck or not, most are built on box standard chassis … just like the buses are…
I’ve driven a fair selection of front engined coaches, mostly midi coaches with 35 to 40 seats, and they share one characteristic…they are an absolute pain in the arse. Noisier, crap driver and passenger access and actually not as smooth as rear engined. Also not as much luggage space generally as having a prop shaft running length of coach means you can’t have straight through lockers.
Iceland is full of unusual vehicles to cope with their unusual conditions. If Carryfast thinks this weird truck bus should replace rear engined buses I challenge him to spend a day driving one round a town service
(Surely I don’t have to spell out the reasons busses and coaches are mostly rear engined do I? Surely not 
)
